IN

THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

In the matter of: SPORT DATA FEED Ltd, having its registered office at Suite 317, 3rd Floor, St James Court, St Denis Street, Port Louis, Mauritius. Versus THE AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS Ltd, having its registered office at c/o Mrs Sylvia Maigrot, Wolmar, Flic en Flac. Respondent In the presence of: THE GAMBLING REGULATORY AUTHORITY, having its main place of business at 12th Floor, Newton Tower, Sir William Newton Street, Port Louis, Mauritius. Co-Respondent And in the matter of:- Ex parte SPORT DATA FEED Ltd, having its registered office at Suite 317, 3rd Floor, St James court, St Denis Street, Port Louis, Mauritius Applicant I, Mr. Sahadeo Ramjit, the Executive Chairman and Chief Executive of Sport Data Feed Ltd, residing at 67, Sodnac Avenue, Quatre-Bornes, Mauritius, holder of a National Identity card bearing Number R2107704304147. MAKE MY SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AS A HINDU AND SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1. I am the Executive Chairman and Chief Executive of the Applicant and I am authorised to solemnly affirm the present affidavit on its behalf. A. THE PARTIES and CORE SUBJECT 2. The Applicant was incorporated on 23rd June 2011 as a private domestic company limited by shares and its principal business is to represent and act as a licencee of the owners of official sports data including, without limitation Football DataCo Limited, a company incorporated under the Laws of England and Wales and having its registered office at 30 Gloucester Place, London W1U 8PL, United Kingdom. Football DataCo Limited acts on behalf of the UK Leagues to protect, market and Applicant

commercially exploit the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results). The certificate of incorporation of the Applicant is herewith annexed and marked (ANNEX A). 3. The Respondent is a domestic public limited company incorporated in Mauritius and is inter alia licenced by the Co-Respondent under section 44 (5) of The Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007, to operate as a bookmaker to conduct fixed odds betting on football matches taking place outside Mauritius including, without limitation, football matches organized by the aforesaid leagues in the United Kingdom (referred to also as the UK football matches). 4. The Co-Respondent is the local regulatory authority established under the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007 which regulates gambling activities in Mauritius, including without limitation, betting on UK football matches. As such, the Co- Respondent may issue trade licences subject to terms and conditions imposed by it. The Co-Respondent is also bound to ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair, legal and transparent manner. 5. By a written agreement dated 7th August 2012, the Applicant has been authorised by Football DataCo Ltd to file this application against (a) The Automatic Systems Ltd in the presence of The Gambling Regulatory Authority; and/or (b) such other respondents as the parties may agree in writing. 6. With respect to the trade licence held by the Respondent, the key provisions of The Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007 are as follows:

A. Section 44 (5) of the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007 The Board may, on application made for the conduct of fixed odds bet on any event or contingency other than a local race, issue a bookmaker licence authorising the applicant to operate at such place as may be approved by the Board. B. Section 2 (Interpretation) of Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007 1. event or contingency means (a) Any sporting event; or (b) Any prescribed event or contingency, the outcome of which is uncertain or unknown to any person. 2. Sporting event means any horse-race or football match approved by the Board which takes place outside Mauritius, or such other sporting event as may be prescribed.

7. In accordance with the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007 (paragraph 6 (B) (2) above) the Co-Respondent has a responsibility and a duty to approve those football matches taking place outside Mauritius on which its licencees offer bets to the public. To date, the Co-Respondent has not yet approved the football matches played outside Mauritius on which betting is being authorized to be conducted. 8. In the case of horse races taking place in Mauritius on which betting operators offer bets, the local Horse Racing organizer must compulsorily be a licencee of the Co- Respondent under section 30 of the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007 and as such, all its horse races on which betting may be offered to the public are approved by the Co-Respondent. 9. However, if betting on horse races taking place outside Mauritius was allowed then in accordance with the relevant provision of the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007 as particularized in paragraph 6 ( B ) 2 above, those horse races would need to be approved by the Co-Respondent before being offered to the public. These provisions are meant to ensure that betting may be conducted in a legal, transparent and fair manner while at the same time ensuring that the interests of all parties are legally protected including the copyright of the Horse Racing Organizer. 10. The equivalent, similar and consistent provision of the law applicable to football matches taking place outside Mauritius as laid down in paragraph 6 (B) 2 above has not been enforced by the Co-Respondent. 11. In particular, the Co-Respondent has not yet approved football matches played outside Mauritius on which bets may be offered to the public. There are yet only 310 horse races taking place in Mauritius each year but some 100,000 football matches played outside Mauritius yearly which are currently offered to the public which are not monitored, controlled or approved by the Co-Respondent. The Co-Respondent has not provided for the verification of football data before licences were issued to Football Bookmakers whilst for local horse races, the Co-Respondent having approved those races may verify the racing card and the official results thereof. The turnover of the seven football bookmakers put together is two and a half times bigger than fifty horse racing bookmakers together with two totalisator companies added together. 12. When a punter places a bet on a local horse race, he knows that the particular race is approved by the Co-Respondent. Surprisingly, the member of the public assumes that football matches on which he bets are approved by the Co-Respondent but in fact and in truth, the bookmakers themselves take four key decisions which normally should be dealt with by the Co-Respondent, viz : a. They decide which football matches to offer the public to bet on ; b. They choose the source from which they obtain their football fixture lists;

c. They choose the source from which they obtain the results of football matches; and d. They choose whether to obtain the football fixtures and results from an official, accurate and reliable source or to obtain the football fixtures and results from an unofficial source, infringing copyright laws and committing plagiarism. 13. The direct consequence of the Co-Respondents failure to approve the football matches played outside Mauritius on which bets may be offered has led to the confusing situation whereby for the same match, one bookmaker has given the result as a home win, another bookmaker has given it an away win and a third bookmaker has given it a draw. The newspaper Weekend dated 8th July 2012 has described the situation as Un <<bordel indescriptible>> (ANNEX B). B. THE LEAGUES AND FOOTBALL DATACO LIMITED 14. The following corporations are incorporated in the United Kingdom (i) The Football Association Premier League Limited, (ii) The Football League Limited, (iii) Scottish Premier League Limited and (iv) The Scottish Football League; (hereinafter the four leagues are herein after collectively referred to as the Leagues). These Leagues are the sole legal owners of the intellectual property rights that subsist in the Fixture Lists of professional football matches played or to be played under the auspices of the Leagues, or any part of them (hereinafter referred to as the the Fixture Lists) and other statistics, information or other data (such as match results) relating to such professional football matches (hereinafter referred to as the Football Data). 15. Since 2001, Football DataCo Limited has acted on behalf of the Leagues to protect, market and commercially exploit the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results). C. THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LEAGUES AND FOOTBALL DATACO LIMITED 16. By (i) agreements dated 28th May 2003 and amended/extended on 16th February 2004, 22nd June 2006 and 23rd January 2009 and confirmed on 12th March 2012 between Football DataCo Limited and The Football Association Premier League Limited and The Football League Limited; and (ii) agreements dated 30th June 2005 and amended/extended on 19th July 2006 and 23rd January 2009 and confirmed on 12th March 2012 between Football DataCo Limited and The Scottish Premier League Limited and The Scottish Football League, the following rights have been granted to Football DataCo Limited (ANNEX C1).

(a) The Leagues have licenced the intellectual property rights (IP Rights) that subsist in the Fixture Lists and the Football Data to Football DataCo Limited up to 31 July 2013; and (b) Football DataCo Limited is authorised by the Leagues to sub-licence the IP Rights in the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) to third parties. 17. The notarised and legalised copy of the said confirmation agreement dated 12th March 2012 between the Leagues and Football DataCo Limited which has been duly notarised by Mr. Shujaat Husain, Notary Public practising in the UK, on the 22nd March 2012 is herewith attached and marked (ANNEX C1 refers). D. THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN FOOTBALL DATACO LIMITED AND APPLICANT 18. By a written agreement dated 14th November 2011 and confirmed on 7th August 2012 between the Applicant and Football DataCo Limited, the following legal rights have been, inter alia conferred upon the Applicant: (a) The Applicant was appointed as the sole official sales representative of Football DataCo Limited for the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) in Mauritius in consideration of an advance payment and royalty payable by the Applicant to Football DataCo Limited; (b) The Applicant has the authority to sub-licence the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) to licensed bookmakers/betting operators in Mauritius, inter alia for the use and reproduction thereof and collect the appropriate fees from such licensed bookmakers/betting operators; and

(c) The Applicant is entitled to lodge and conduct legal proceedings in relation to the unauthorised use and reproduction of the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) against any person infringing the IP Rights that subsist therein.

Football DataCo Limited has therefore validly appointed the Applicant as its official representative for the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) in Mauritius. 19. The notarised and legalised copy of the said confirmatory agreement dated 7th August 2012 between the Applicant and Football DataCo Limited which has been duly notarised by Mr. Shujaat Husain, Notary Public practising in the UK, on the 9th August 2012 is herewith attached and marked ANNEX C2.

20. The Applicant has been informed that during their visit in Mauritius in September 2011, the representatives of Football DataCo Ltd had a meeting with the Co- Respondents board and explained to them that Football DataCo Ltd is the lawful owner of the IP Rights (copyright) subsisting in the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results). Football DataCo Ltd notified the Co-Respondent that no entity had then been appointed to authorize the use and reproduction of the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) in Mauritius. The representatives of Football DataCo Ltd therefore urged the Co-Respondent for assistance so that their rights are not infringed. The Co-Respondent was further informed that Football DataCo Ltd was in the process of concluding an agreement with the Applicant and that if it was successful, the Applicant would be its sole licencee and official representative in Mauritius. 21. Being submerged with public complaints as per press reports (ANNEXES D1, D2 and D3), on 25th October 2011, pursuant to section 97 of the GRA Act 2007, the Co- Respondent issued an Addendum to the conditions of licence regulating bookmakers conducting fixed odds betting on football matches played outside Mauritius (Annex D4). The Addendum expressly provided for the following requirement: 12. With effect from 1 November 2011, you should inform the Gambling Regulatory Authority of the official fixtures and obtain official results from the official owners of football data (sports data) under which the football matches are organized. The sources of the official fixtures and of the official results should be supported by documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the Authority 22. Applicant is informed that the effective date of 1st November 2011 was extended to 1st December 2011 after the bookmakers, including Respondent, made a request to Co-Respondent to that effect. 23. On 14th November 2011, Football DataCo confirmed in writing to the Co-Respondent that the Applicant has been appointed as its licencee official sales representative; in relation to the supply and sub-licensing of official the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) to licensed bookmakers/betting operators in Mauritius. The Co-Respondent has not so far responded to the said letter. The letter dated 14th November 2011 is herewith attached and marked ANNEX E. E. CONTRACTS BETWEEN APPLICANT AND BETTING OPERATORS 24. The Applicant avers that to date, only two bookmakers/betting operators, namely Value Plus Ltd and Bosco & Co Ltd, have each signed a Memorandum of Understanding dated in November 2011 and renewed in January 2012 with the Applicant authorizing such bookmakers/betting operators to use and reproduce the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results). The aforesaid

Memoranda of Understanding are attached and marked as ANNEXES F1, F2, F3 and F4. 25. The Applicant avers that the two aforesaid bookmakers, namely Value Plus Ltd and Bosco & Co Ltd had already applied for the renewal (Annexes F5 and F6) of their copyrights licencing agreements for football season 2012/2013 which are being formalized in London while the Fixture Lists and Football Data(including match results) are currently being provided to the two bookmakers. 26. The Applicant has also issued two letters both dated 26th January 2012 to the Co- Respondent. The first letter informed the Co-Respondent that Value Plus Ltd and Bosco & Co Ltd have each entered into a copyrights licencing agreement with the Applicant and that the latter would be supply them with the Fixture Lists and Football Data(including match results) for the Leagues. The Applicant also urged the Co-Respondent to take the appropriate measures to ensure that other bookmakers/betting operators licenced by it do not infringe the Applicants rights. A copy of the first letter is herewith attached and marked as ANNEX G1 27. The second letter informed the Co-Respondent of the number of matches in respect of which the Applicant is authorised to supply and sub-licence the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) to bookmakers/betting operators in Mauritius. The Applicant further informed the Co-Respondent that it was ready to provide the latter with the security details to access its website, so that the Co- Respondent would be in a better position to fulfill its statutory duties under the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007. The Co-Respondent, however, did not reply. A copy of the second letter to the Co-Respondent is attached and is marked as ANNEX G2. 28. The Applicant avers that the Co-Respondent was under a statutory duty to enforce the aforesaid Addendum in relation to football matches played under the remit of the UK Leagues which it failed to do. F. THE RESPONDENTS BAD FAITH AND UNLAWFUL OPERATIONS: 29. The Applicant was informed by Football DataCo Ltd that during the visit of the latters representatives to Mauritius in September 2011, the Respondent offered their services as a potential exclusive representative of Football DataCo Ltd in Mauritius. This proposal was later confirmed by an email dated 21st September 2011 addressed by Mr Jean Hardy (Respondents director) to Mr David Folker, the General Manager of Football DataCo Ltd. A copy of the said email is herewith attached and marked ANNEX H.

 30. The contents of the email (ANNEX H) clearly indicate that the Respondent was also proposing to act as the enforcer in Mauritius of the IP Rights (copyrights), owned by Football DataCo in the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results). 31. It is self evident that Respondent was aware, even before the Co-Respondent issued the Addendum dated 25th October 2011, that the failure to obtain prior authorization from the copyright owners before making use and/or reproduction of the the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results), would result into the Respondents own words, the bookmakers facing an eventual risk of having an injunction on [its] operation (ANNEX H refers). 32. The Applicant avers that the Respondent cannot assume the role of a bookmaker and at the same time purport to act as the supplier of the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) at the same time, this is in contravention of The Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007 which provides that betting should be conducted in a transparent and fair manner. On the other hand, the Applicant is neutral and impartial as it is not a bookmaker/betting operator. 33. Under the licencing agreement which Applicant has with Football DataCo Ltd, several meetings and negotiations took place between the Applicant and the Respondent. In that respect, on 24th January 2012, a meeting was held at Applicants registered office with Mr. Guillaume Hardy, the General Manager of the Respondent, whereby the Respondent was made aware of its obligations to abide by the Copyright Law of Mauritius by entering into a copyright licencing agreement with the Applicant, if the Respondent wished to conduct fixed odds betting on football matches, organized by the UK Leagues. 34. Subsequently, several emails were exchanged between the Applicant and the Respondent whereby all information requested by the Respondent was supplied to the Respondent by the Applicant. 35. The Applicant avers that at no point in time during the negotiations, did the Respondent raise any issue as to the legality of the rights claimed by the Applicant in the use and reproduction of the Fixture Lists and Football Data(including match results) as evidenced by the emails exchanged by representatives of both parties. In fact, an email dated 25th January 2012, sent by Mr. Guillaume Hardy, the General Manager of the Respondent reads, inter alia as follows:

Following the meeting we had on Tuesday, I have a few more issues I want to raise regarding Sport Data Feed Ltd and would be grateful if you could provide us in writing with the following information. 1. Can you please forward to us the agreement or contract you have with DataCo Ltd as we need to provide documentary evidence to the GRA that you are the representative of the official owner of football data 36. Copies of complete emails exchanged are attached hereto and are marked ANNEXES I1, I2 and I3. 37. Applicant avers that it is clear from the above email dated 25th January 2012 that the Respondent acknowledged that Football DataCo Ltd is the official owner of football data in issue and that was why they asked for documentary evidence showing that Football DataCo has appointed Applicant as its exclusive sales representative in Mauritius. There was no doubt whatsoever in the mind of the Respondent that only Football DataCo Ltd is the lawful owner of the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) inasmuch as only Football DataCo Ltd or its sole representative, Sport Data Feed Ltd may sub-licence the Respondent for betting taking place in Mauritius on the Leagues events. 38. The last email received from the Respondent was dated 7th March 2012 from Mrs Nathalie Bibi (the secretary of the Respondents Chairman, Mr. Jean Hardy). The email informed the Applicant as follows: Mr. Jean Hardy is out of the country. He will revert to your mail by the end of next week. No further response from the Respondents Chairman has been received by the Applicant. 39. The Applicant avers that to date, the Respondent has not entered into any copyright licencing agreement with the Applicant authorizing it to use and/or reproduce the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) for the Leagues. The Applicant further avers that the purported negotiations that took place in the months of February and March 2012, culminating in the last email dated 7th March 2012, was only a delaying tactic adopted by the Respondent so that by the time the purported negotiations were to be completed, the Leagues season for the year 2011/2012 had concluded around April 2012. 40. The Applicant avers that since the time the Respondent started negotiations with Football DataCo Ltd in September 2011 and thereafter with the Applicant, the Respondent has acted in bad faith and has been operating in blatant breach of the Applicants legal rights and is still continuing to operate in breach of the Addendum to the conditions of its licence issued by the Co-Respondent since 25 October 2011.

41. The Applicant avers that the Respondent is operating as fixed-odds bookmaker/betting operator in Mauritius and is illegally and/or unlawfully making use of the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) and/or any substantial part thereof without the consent and authorization of the Applicant and/or Football DataCo Limited. Copies of betting slips which clearly show that Respondent is still making use of the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) are attached hereto and are marked as ANNEXES J1, J2, J3 and J4. 42. The Applicant further avers that any document/s produced to the Co-Respondent by any party and claiming to be the official authorization for the use or reproduction of the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) of the Leagues are null and void as the Applicant is the sole authorised representative of Football DataCo Ltd for Mauritius. 43. The Applicant avers that by including the following statement on the Respondent's www.supertote.mu website You can check sources at www.ladbroke.com, www.vitibet.com, www.nowgoal.com and www.bet365.com (ANNEX K1) the Respondent: (a) is acknowledging that it does not source the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) from or with the permission of the Leagues; and (b) is using such Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) in breach of the terms and conditions of the listed websites (e.g. paragraph E1.1 of the terms and conditions of use of the www.bet365.com website clearly states "information accessed by you on the [Bet365] website (including results, sporting data and fixture lists ...) is for your personal use only and the distribution or commercial exploitation of such information is strictly prohibited)". Moreover, this website also requires a person to be a client with www.bet365.com in order to have access to its football data including football results. Clearly, the Respondent is imposing a burden on his clients to register themselves with www.bet365.com and the necessity for clients of the Respondent to register on foreign websites is not approved by the Co- Respondent; and (c) may infringe the copyright and/or other IP rights (e.g. copyright in the typographical arrangement and/or database rights) owned by those third party bookmakers. (d) is deliberately and intentionally choosing to resort to the illegal use of the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) of the Leagues leaving the Applicant with no other alternative than to apply for judicial relief.

44. The Applicant further avers that: (a) certain websites referred to on the Respondent's www.supertote.mu website are not licensed or otherwise authorised by Football DataCo Ltd and, as such, the accuracy of the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) reproduced on such websites cannot be relied upon by the public to be up to date or accurate; and (b) the reference www.ladbroke.com on the Respondents www.supertote.mu website is incorrect (it should read www.ladbrokes.com). This demonstrates a reckless disregard for accuracy to the detriment of public confidence that betting is not being conducted in a fair, legal and transparent manner. (c) furthermore, Mauritius citizens can have no confidence in the veracity of the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) that have been plagiarised by the Respondent from unofficial third party websites. 45. The Applicant avers that the betting tickets of the Respondent are valid for 45 days while the website www.nowgoal.com on which the Respondent refers its clients to verify results keeps the results online for only 7 days. Furthermore, the abbreviation denoting a team by the Respondent and the four websites recommended by the Respondent varies from one another. For example, on 1st September 2012, the Respondent referred to a match as: West Brom v Everton (Annex K1 refers) while www.vitibet.com referred to the same match as: "West Bromwich Albion v Everton Liverpool" (Annex K2) and www.nowgoal.com referred to the same match as: "West Bromwich (WBA) v Everton (Annex K3). It is not surprising that for teams which are less popular, a punter might really think that a team bearing the equivalent name Everton Liverpool or Porto Real Madrid and so on do exist. For this reason, the unique name/s that should be used must come from the official owner of the leagues to avoid unnecessary confusion and dispute. To a layman, the team ''Everton Liverpool'' did not play that Saturday 1st September 2012 according to www.supertote.mu but did play according to www.vitibet.com as he would not know that ''Everton'' is one team and ''Liverpool'' is another team. 46. The Applicant further avers that should the Co-Respondent condone such actions by the Respondent then it would be open for any bookmaker in Mauritius to stop as from the next horse-race meeting the lawful and proper payment of copyright licence fees to The Mauritius Turf Club by referring customers to horse race fixture list and races results reproduced on another bookmaker's website. Such a

development would have serious and detrimental financial consequences on the local horse racing industry and foreign direct investment in Mauritius when Mauritius ranks 2nd in Africa and 38th in the world for the observance of Intellectual Property Rights. 47. The Applicant avers that by its unlawful acts and doings on its website, the Respondent has acted unlawfully and in clear breach of the Addendum of 25 October 2011. 48. The Applicant avers that the conditions of the Respondent which are approved by the Co-Respondent and which are conspicuously displayed on the website of Respondent www.supertote.mu include inter alia the following: 1.3 Betting in running Quotes or prices on selected events or contestants are updated in running. Thus betting that occurs after the official start but before the official end of the event; 2.3 Cut-off time to accept and process bets A bookmaker shall, subject to the provisions of the relevant legislation, close all betting on an event or a component within an event on which the bet is sought to be placed prior to the start of the event or component of the event has officially started. 2.7.3 Bets after official start of an event and contrary to rule 2.3 shall be null and void. 2.8.1 NO payment of Winnings shall take place until the results are official. 3.12 Dead Heat Rule In case two or more players come out of an event as top goal scorers, the pay out will be divided by the number of top goal scorers. For example, if there are two players named as official top goal scorers, the pay out as shown on a valid ticket shall be divided by two. The same principle shall apply in case there are more than two top goal scorers. [Bold underline are mine] 49. The Applicant avers that the conditions in the paragraph above are approved by the Co-Respondent and accordingly, the Respondent must compulsorily rely on official data. The word official is cited repetitively as fundamental conditions of the Respondents contractual relationship with its clients as depicted on the website of the respondent; www.supertote.mu. The Applicant therefore avers that the Respondent is itself breaching its own conditions since it has not signed the copyrights licencing agreement with the Applicant to obtain official Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results).

G. CO-RESPONDENTS CONDUCT: 50. Co-Respondent is the Gambling Regulatory Authority responsible for the issue of licences to operate as bookmaker for football betting in Mauritius. 51. Co-Respondent has issued a licence to Respondent under section 44 (5) of the GRA ACT 2007 in 2008 and has renewed such licence each year thereafter. 52. Applicant avers that in accordance with The Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007, Co-Respondent has a statutory duty to establish and maintain a proper legal framework to regulate, monitor and control betting in Mauritius on foreign football matches. 53. Applicant avers that Co-Respondent has a responsibility to promote public confidence and to ensure that betting on football matches is conducted in a fair and transparent manner and not to the detriment of the public. 54. Applicant further avers that Co-Respondent is obliged to ensure that holders of bookmakers licences issued by it do not infringe intellectual property rights and copyrights laws of third parties This is stipulated in the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007, section 6 (e): .. coordinate with the Police des Jeux for the prevention of illegal gambling and other malpractices in any activity regulated under this Act .. 55. Applicant avers that several complaints have been made by members of the public to the Co-Respondent. These complaints relate to the use and publication of inaccurate fixture lists and football data (including inaccurate match results) by licenced bookmakers/betting operators. Such inaccurate fixture lists and inaccurate football data (including inaccurate match results) result in financial prejudice to the detriment of members of the public. 56. Applicant avers that bookmakers currently offer football betting and obtain the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) from unofficial websites which are not reliable as (i) the operators of such websites do not own or have authority to use and reproduce the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results); (ii) the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) of the UK leagues published on such websites are not obtained from official sources of data approved by Football DataCo; and (iii) the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) published on such websites may be incomplete, out of date and/or erroneous. 57. Applicant further avers that it is difficult for Co-Respondent to verify the accuracy of any Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) when addressing complaints made by members of the public.

58. Applicant avers that the Chairman of the Gambling Regulatory Authority Board in a press interview on 29th January 2012 admitted that there are far too many complaints received from the public. The Chairman pointed out that bookmakers provided inaccurate results of football matches to the public. He said :Car je dois vous avouer que nous avons eu des cas o un match a termin par 2-1, mais lorganisateur de paris a affich un rsultat de 1-2. Cest plus possible. (ANNEX D1 refers). 59. Applicant avers that on 20th June 2012, three different bookmakers gave three different results for the same match. (ANNEX B refers). This situation according to the press and the interview of the Chairman of the GRA Board is unfortunately a regular feature of football betting in Mauritius. The level of complaints received by Co-Respondent and the press is very telling in that regard. 60. Applicant further avers that more than eight months have lapsed since the Addendum was issued by the Co-Respondent, and yet, the licence of the Respondent has been renewed even though no authorization from the Applicant was furnished to the Co-Respondent. Applicant therefore avers that in renewing the licence of the Respondent, the Co-Respondent has been licencing and/or approving the Respondent to act in breach of the very Addendum it issued and in breach of the Applicants rights under The Copyright Act 1997. 61. Applicant avers that it is wrong for a regulator to impose mandatory conditions for the operation of a particular licence, and thereafter decide to close its eyes to obvious and continuing breaches of such conditions which it has itself imposed. 62. Applicant avers that the present chaotic situation cannot be allowed to continue. 63. Applicant avers that Sporting event is defined in the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007 as any horse-race or football match approved by the board which takes place outside Mauritius, or such other sporting event as may be prescribed [emphasis added]. 64. The board of the Co-Respondent has a responsibility and a duty to approve the football matches taking place outside Mauritius on which its licencees offer and negotiate bets with the public. 65. The Applicant avers that the Co-Respondent is wrong not to have approved the football matches under the remit of the Leagues as provided for in the Statute. 66. The Applicant avers that in the case of bookmakers/betting operators who take bets on local horse races, the Co-Respondent does not issue any licence unless a copyright licensing agreement duly signed between the Racing Organiser and the bookmaker is produced, as evidenced by a letter dated 10th August 2012 emanating

from The Mauritius Turf Club (MTC), (the only horse racing organizer in Mauritius) which stipulates, inter alia, all GRA Licencees who use our horse racing fixtures, results and data need to enter into our copyright licensing agreement . (ANNEX L) 67. Respondent is also a betting operator on local horse races and signs every year a copyright licensing agreement with the MTC. Such copyright licensing agreement is filed with the Co-Respondent in accordance with Section 33(2)(b) of the GRA ACT 2007. In the circumstances, neither the Respondent nor the Co-Respondent may plead or pretend ignorance of the subsistence of copyright in the official sports fixtures, results and data. 68. Applicant avers that the Co-Respondent had similarly and consistently issued the Addendum consolidating the conditions of the trade licences and requiring Football bookmakers who accept bets on football matches to produce documentary evidence of their authority to use official fixtures and official results obtained from the official owners. 69. Applicant avers that on the one hand, the condition to bookmakers in relation to local horse races to produce documentary evidence of their authority to use official fixtures and official results obtained from official owners are stringently adhered to, but on the other hand, the same conditions concerning betting on football matches that are contained in the Addendum issued on 25th October 2011 are not being enforced by the Co-Respondent. The Applicant therefore avers that there is a complete absence of level playing field between football bookmakers and local horse racing bookmakers where local horse racing bookmakers must pay for the use of official fixtures and results from the official owner while football bookmakers are allowed to use fixtures and results from any unofficial source or from any web site by indulging in plagiarism. Applicant avers that the enforcement of the Addendum of 25th October 2011 remains the foundation for betting to be conducted in a fair and transparent manner. 70. Applicant avers that members of the public are concerned and confused by the inconsistency, unreliability and inaccuracy of those unofficial and incorrect Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) used and reproduced by the bookmakers. I herewith refer to copies of relevant newspaper and media articles marked as ANNEXES B, D1, D2 and D3. 71. Applicant avers that in September 2011, the Co-Respondents officers and board members met with the General Manager of Football DataCo Ltd, Football DataCo

Ltds English lawyer and a lawyer from Jurisconsult (Mauritius). During this meeting, the General Manager of Football DataCo Ltd informed the Co-Respondents officers and board members that Football DataCo had no official representative in Mauritius and was currently in negotiations to appoint the Applicant as the sole representative of Football DataCo Ltd to supply and sub-licence the Fixture Lists and/or Football Data (including match results) to bookmakers and others in the territory of Mauritius. The appointment of the Applicant was later confirmed by Football DataCo Ltd to the Co-Respondent in a letter dated 14 November 2011 (ANNEX E refers). 72. Applicant further avers that by reason of the meeting and the confirmation letter referred to in paragraph 71 above, the Co-Respondent was (or if acting reasonably and in the discharge of its duties should have been) aware that no other entity was authorised by Football DataCo Ltd to supply and sub-licence the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) to bookmakers in the territory of Mauritius and, in particular, that Sportradar AG was not authorised by Football DataCo Ltd to supply and sub-licence the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) to Stevenhills Ltd as per the press reports (ANNEX D2 refers). 73. Applicant avers that in WeekEnd newspaper dated 20th November 2011, the Chief Executive Officer of Stevenhills Ltd misled the public when he stated, viz: . La question de trouver un <<official fixtures and results from official owners>> ne pose pas de problme. << Depuis notre entre en operation, nous travaillons avec Betradar (ANNEX D2 refers). 74. The Applicant further avers that the assertions by Stevenhills Ltd that Sportradar AG trading as Betradar is the official owner of (or authorised by the official owner to use or supply) the Fixture Lists and Football Data(including match results) amounts to the knowing or reckless supply of false information contrary to the provisions of Section 99 of the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act 2007, viz: Section 99 (1) Disciplinary action against the licencee The Board may, at any time, refuse to renew, or may suspend .., or revoke or cancel from such date as the board may determine, any licence where (a) Any information furnished by the applicant for the issue or renewal of the licence was, at the time when the information was furnished, false in a material respect or was subject to a material omission; (c) the licencee knowingly or recklessly supplies to the Board materials information that is false or misleading; (d) the licencee, has failed to comply with any condition of the licence and has not complied with such condition within such

period as the Board may allow after delivery of a written notice .. requiring such failure to be remedied within a specified period; (m) the licencee contravenes or is in breach of any condition of his licence (n) the licencee fails to comply with any direction given by the board. 75. Applicant avers that Sportradar is not authorised by Football DataCo or the UK football leagues to supply or sub-licence the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) to bookmakers in Mauritius. Furthermore (and as recited out in paragraph 80(5) hereunder) Football DataCo Ltd and the Leagues have issued legal proceedings against Sportradar in connection with their unauthorised use of Football Data, and have successfully established that in the EU, IP Rights do subsist in both football Fixture Lists and certain Football Data (such as goals, goal scorers, times of goals, cards and substitutions). H. APPLICANTS RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW: 76. Applicant stands advised and verily believes that the concept of copyright protection for literary works under the Mauritius Copyright Act 1997 (MCA) is based on substantially similar principles to the concept of copyright protection for such works under the English Copyright Act 1954 (CA), English Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 (as in force prior to 1st January 1998) (CDPA) (together the English Acts) and established UK case law relating to the CA and CDPA (referred to together as English Law). In particular: (a) Works capable of protection. Any work other than a dramatic or musical work which is written, spoken or sung is capable of being protected as a literary work under English Law1. The MCA contains an equally wide definition of a literary work being any production in the literary domain (subject to certain specific exclusions)2. (b) Fixation. The CDPA and the MCA both contain an identically worded requirement that literary works must be written down, recorded, fixed or otherwise reduced to any material form in order to be protected3. (c) Originality. The English Acts (and the MCA) both state that literary works must be original in order to be protected. The concept of originality is not defined under the English Acts but a strong line of case law has established that the

S.3(1) CDPA S.2(1)(b) CA 3 S.3(2) CDPA and s.3(1)(b) MCA
1 2

English Courts interpret this to mean that the author must have created the work through his own skill, judgment and individual effort and must not have copied it from other works. This interpretation is reflected in the definition of original within the MCA4. 77. The Applicant is also advised that the following cases have affirmed that Fixture Lists and similar tables/compilations are original literary works capable of copyright protection under English Law: (a) The Football League Limited v Littlewoods Pools [1959]5 The Football League claimed Littlewoods had infringed the copyright in The Football Leagues Fixture Lists by publishing pools coupons which included lists of matches copied from the Fixture Lists. Littlewoods contended that copyright could not subsist in the lists themselves as they were merely the chronological presentation of a list of unprotectable facts, the production and presentation of which as a chronological list resulted inevitably from the production of each individual fixture. The Court rules that the Fixture Lists were protectable as copyright works, Upjohn J saying in my judgment. the League.are entitled to claim that the chronological list is produced as a result of the entire skill, labour, time, judgment and ingenuity of the League, their servants and agents. Accordingly, in my judgment, the plaintiffs are entitled to the copyright in the chronological list. (b) Ladbrokes v William Hill [1964]6 William Hill claimed that Ladbrokes had infringed copyright by reproducing a substantial part of the weekly betting coupons issued by William Hill. Ladbrokes claimed that no copyright subsisted in the betting coupons. The Court found that copyright did subsist in the coupons, Lord Evershed stating there can, in my judgment, be no doubt upon the evidence in the present case that, when all the hard work has been done in deciding upon the wagers to be offered, there still remains the further distinct task, requiring considerable skill, labour and judgment (though of a different kind) in the way in which the chosen wagers are expressed and presented to the eye of the customer. (c) Independent Television Publications Ltd. v Time Out Ltd. and Elliott; and The British Broadcasting Corporation v Time Out Ltd. and Elliott [1984]7 In this case the producers and publishers of listings of television programs (ITP and the BBC) brought proceedings against the publishers of Time Out magazine

4 5

S.2(1) MCA [1959] 1 Ch 637 6 [1964] 1 W.L.R 273 7 [1984] F.S.R. 64

who they alleged were copying their listings. What was in dispute was whether copyright could subsist in chronological lists of programming information. Whitford J ruled, Here it stands agreed that there is a great deal of skill and labour involved in arriving at the daily programme schedules. In my judgment they are compilations which are entitled to protection as copyright works.

(d) Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd v Wilfred Gilbert (Staffordshire) Ltd [1994]8 This is an example of a more recent case where copyright was found to subsist in the race programme and race card for greyhound races. 78. Applicant stands advised that similar reasoning leading to judgments similar to those in the United Kingdom has been adopted by the courts in The Republic Of Mauritius; 1. Mimosa v/s Duracell 1989 , 2. Lamarque v/s M H Music 1997, 3. Ralph Laurens case 2008, 4. State of Mauritius v/s V-Street International & Anor 2008 SCJ 84 5. 79. Applicant is advised that in the United Kingdom, prior to the introduction of the Database Directive (96/9/EC), a work such as the Fixture List was protected by copyright if its creation involved 'skill, labour and judgment'. In the 1959 case of The Football League Ltd v Littlewoods Pools [1959] 1 Ch 637, the English High Court applied this test and concluded that football Fixtures Lists were protected by copyright. The wording of the relevant Mauritius law is similar to that of English pre-Directive law, and has not been amended by the Database Directive, and so this authority is still relevant and applicable in Mauritius. 80. The Applicant is advised that: (1) the Database Directive (being an EU directive) has no equivalent and is not applicable to Mauritius. (2) The Database Directive (96/9/EC) introduced to EU countries: i. under Article 3, a higher standard for originality for copyright for databases, of whether by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, the database constitutes its "author's own intellectual creation"; and ii. under Article 7, a separate sui generis "database right".

[1994] I.P.D. 170892

(3) In Football DataCo & Others v Stan James & Others the English High Court held at first instance that (applying the Database Directive originality test) the copyright does subsist in the Fixture Lists ([2010] EWHC 841(Ch)). This was appealed and referred to the European Court of Justice (CJEU). The CJEU held (Case C-604/10) that the Fixture Lists are capable of protection by database copyright under Article 3 of the Database Directive if, by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, such Fixture Lists constitute their author's own intellectual creation. The case has now been returned to the English Court of Appeal to apply the CJEU's ruling. The hearing before the English Court of Appeal is yet to take place. Pending the decision of the Court of Appeal, the first instance judgment of Floyd J (that the Fixture Lists are protected by copyright) remains effective. (4) In the Fixtures Marketing cases (Cases C-46/02, C-203/02, C-338/02 and C- 444/02), the CJEU held that the Fixtures Lists are not protected by the sui generis database right created by Article 7 of the Database Directive (96/9/EC). However, the Fixtures Marketing cases are not relevant to the issue of whether intellectual property rights subsist in the football Fixture List under the law of Mauritius, as the sui generis database right has no equivalent under Mauritius law. (5) The English High Court has also concluded in Football DataCo & Others v Stan James & Others and Football DataCo & Others v Sportradar & Another ([2012] EWHC 1185 (Ch)) that certain Football Data is protected by the sui generis database right. The defendants in these cases have appealed this decision to the English Court of Appeal. The hearing before the English Court of Appeal will take place in December 2012. (6) Because the Database Directive has no equivalent under Mauritius law, the cases in paragraphs 80(3) and 80(4) above are not relevant to the issue of whether IP Rights subsist in the Fixture List and Football Data under the law of Mauritius. Nevertheless, it is clear that in the EU, as per paragraph 80(5) above, IP Rights do subsist in both football Fixture Lists and certain Football Data (such as goals, goal scorers, times of goals, cards and substitutions etc). 81. Applicant avers that by its aforesaid unlawful and/or illegal acts and omissions, the Respondent has caused and is still causing substantial financial prejudice to the Applicant and should the situation be allowed to continue, the Applicant is likely to suffer irreparable damage and prejudice which cannot be adequately compensated or atone for by an award of damages.

82. Applicant avers that the Respondents aforesaid unlawful and/or illegal acts and doings are clearly in breach of the Mauritius Copyright Act 1997 and amount to an unlawful infringement of the Applicants legal rights. 83. Applicant avers that the Respondent holds no right to and is not entitled either to reproduce and/or make use of the Fixture Lists and Football Data(including match results) of the Leagues (or any of them) without being authorised to do so. 84. Applicant avers that it is impossible to conduct betting on the horse races of The Mauritius Turf Club without using its official fixtures and its official results, as evidenced by a letter dated 10th August 2012, emanating from the Mauritius Turf Club, duly signed by its General Manager, Mr. Benoit Halbwachs (Annex L refers). Similar views were expressed by Michel Barnier, the EU Commissioner responsible for International Markets and Services (ANNEX M). 85. Applicant repeats that those bookmakers/betting operators [including the Respondent] that wish to use and reproduce the official racecard of The Mauritius Turf Club (MTC) for the purpose of inviting bets from the public must enter into a copyright licence with the MTC (MTC Copyright Licence). The MTC Copyright Licence includes, inter alia an acknowledgement by such bookmakers/betting operators that MTC owns the copyright in such racecard. Applicant avers that the position of the MTC racecard is analogous to the position of the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results). 86. Applicant is advised and verily believes that horseracing fixtures and the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) are analogous. In common with horseracing fixtures it was held in the English law case of The Football League Limited v Littlewoods Pools [see paragraph 77(a) above] that the football Fixture Lists are produced as a result of the skill and ingenuity by the League [and] their servants. The Fixture Lists are not (and cannot be) created by means of a computer program alone, but additionally require considerable human skill, labour and judgment. The Court ruled that the Football Fixture Lists were protectable as copyright works. 87. Applicant avers that during a recent speech to a conference of the European Parliament, Michel Barnier (EU Commissioner for Internal Markets & Services) identified the need for the European Parliament, Member States and other stakeholders to (i) effectively protect citizens from fraud; (ii) respond to the legitimate expectations of gambling operators; and (iii) protect the integrity of sports competitions (ANNEX M refers). The situation is no different in Mauritius. The press and the co-respondent echoed similar concerns. (ANNEXES B, D1, D2, D3 refer). The Applicant further believes that a number of sports federations have argued that a ban on certain types of gambling products, together with a requirement to settle bets on the official result, is a key factor in protecting citizens

from fraud and ensuring the integrity of sports competitions. The Applicant further avers that most of the major legal gambling operators (such as William Hill, Ladbrokes, Betfred & BWin Party) already include (as part of their terms and conditions) an obligation to settle sports bets on the official results. Applicant avers that confusion is inevitable without the use of official fixtures and official results from official owners. Applicant who is also licensed to represent the Georgian leagues obtained similar feedback in connection with incorrect football data used by betting operators. (ANNEX N). 88. Applicant avers that on 21st June 2012, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) issued an opinion in the case of Football DataCo Limited & others v Sportradar GmbH & another (Case C-173/11). The Advocate General opined that database right infringement via the Internet occurs both in the country where the website servers hosting the data are located and the country where the individuals accessing the website are located. If this opinion is followed, infringing users will not be able to escape proceedings being brought in the content owners own national courts. Whilst the Advocate Generals opinion is limited to the EU database right, the Applicant avers that the same principle should apply equally to copyright infringement via the Internet in Mauritius. The Advocate General is responsible for issuing an impartial and public opinion on each case brought before the CJEU before a ruling is made. His opinion is not determinative but tends to be followed by the CJEU (ANNEX O). 89. Applicant avers that as per DLA PIPER News Release of 08 May 2012, live football data is protected by The European database right wherein it was stated inter alia: It follows that anyone who publishes a substantial part of Football DataCos live data on their website without a licence will be liable for database right infringement. Applicant therefore avers that collecting, gathering, compiling, processing and preparing of the Fixture Lists and Football Data does constitute creative work and is protected by copyright law (ANNEX P). 90. Applicant has exhausted all possible avenues to prevent the Respondent from using the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) of the Leagues for the purpose of conducting fixed odds betting without the Applicants licence. The Applicant is left with no other alternative than to apply for judicial relief. 91. Applicant avers that the attempt of Respondent to represent Football DataCo Ltd and to be appointed as its sole representative in Mauritius is an express admission of the Respondent itself in the legal rights of the Applicant. 92. Applicant avers that Respondent is making use of the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) of the Leagues and in so doing the Respondent is willfully, knowingly and deliberately infringing the intellectual property rights of the Leagues and infringing the Applicants derivative rights in the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) which have been licensed by the

Leagues to Football DataCo Limited and in turn sub-licensed by Football DataCo to the Applicant on an exclusive basis for the territory of Mauritius.

I. BALANCE OF HARDSHIP 93. Applicant avers that in the circumstances the balance of hardship is clearly and demonstrably in its favour. 94. Applicant further avers that it has the responsibility and the exclusive right to monitor and protect its legal rights which it derives from Football DataCo Ltd within the territory of Mauritius. The Applicant is therefore entitled to take appropriate legal action to protect its legal rights which it has derived under licence from Football DataCo Limited. 95. Applicant further avers that having been granted the sole licence by Football DataCo Limited, it has acquired an intrinsic legal right which is personal to it and which it is also entitled to protect. 96. Applicant undertakes to file a main action against the Respondent to vindicate and safeguard its legal rights over the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) as the sole licensee of Football DataCo for Mauritius. J. PREVIOUS APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION AND APPLICANTS UNDERTAKING 97. Applicant further avers that a similar application to that of the Applicant for injunctive relief was previously filed before the Honourable Judge in Chambers (Serial No. 401/2005) J. S. Henry Co. Ltd versus Peak Pools Limited wherein: (a) the Leagues had licensed Football DataCo Limited the copyright in the Fixture Lists of football matches played or to be played under the auspices of the Leagues or any part of them; (b) J. S. Henry Co. Ltd was granted an exclusive licence from Football DataCo Ltd (to reproduce and use the Fixture Lists on coupons and/or websites for the purposes of inviting and receiving pool bets locally); (c) A complaint was filed against Peak Pools Limited that it was illegally reproducing and making use of the Fixture Lists over which J. S. Henry Co. Ltd had been granted an exclusive licence for pool betting in Mauritius; (d) J. S. Henry Co. Ltd applied for an injunction prohibiting and restraining Peak Pools Ltd from infringing such copyright in the Fixture Lists;

 (e) On 1st March 2005, the Honourable Judge in Chambers granted J. S. Henry Co. Ltd an interim injunction restraining and prohibiting Peak Pools Limited from infringing the alleged copyright of J. S. Henry Co. Ltd in the Fixture Lists of the Leagues; and (f) By virtue of a ruling delivered on 28th October 2005, His Lordship Y. K. J. Yeung Sik Yuen, Senior Puisne Judge, as he then was, converted the interim order granted in favour of J. S. Henry Co. Ltd into an interlocutory injunction pending determination of the main case, but required the fortification of the applicants undertaking as to damages in the form of a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 2 million in respect of any damages which might be thereafter awarded as a result of the injunction. Copies of the said application and the Judgment are herewith annexed and marked ANNEXES Q and R respectively. 98. Applicant avers that in the circumstances, it is ready and willing, if need be, to fortify its undertaking as to damages by providing a bank guarantee in such amount as the Honourable Judge in Chambers may deem fit and reasonable in the circumstances. K. THE PRAYERS 99. In the circumstances, Applicant avers that it is urgent and necessary that the Honourable Judge sitting in Chambers should, pending the determination of the main action which the Applicant intends to enter against the Respondent, grant interim and interlocutory relief to the Applicant as follows: A. An Interim Order in the nature of an Injunction, at the Applicants risks and peril and upon its undertaking to abide by any Order which the Honourable Judge in Chambers may thereafter make as to damages by reason of the granting of such Interim Order, restraining and prohibiting the Respondent by itself and through its servants, prposs, agents or otherwise from infringing or further infringing the Applicants interest and legal rights in the copyright in the Fixture Lists and Football Data(including match results) as the sole representative of Football DataCo Ltd to grant licences for commercial use or betting purposes for the territory of Mauritius whether by reproducing, making use thereof on coupons or on any other infringing material or by electronic digital means, or otherwise unlawfully dealing with the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) of The Football Association Premier League Limited, The Football League Limited, Scottish Premier League Limited and The Scottish Football League and/or part thereof.

B. A summons calling upon the Respondent and Co-Respondent to be and appear before the Honourable Judge in Chambers, on a day and hour to be fixed in such summons to show cause, if any, why the Order referred to in paragraph (A) above should not be converted into an order in the nature of an Interlocutory Writ of Injunction pending the determination of the main action which the Applicant intends to file before the Supreme Court. C. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, should the Honourable Judge sitting at Chambers decline to grant the Interim Order prayed for above, it is urgent and necessary that a Summons should issue against the Respondent calling upon the latter on a day and hour to be fixed in such summons, to show cause, if any, why an Order in the nature of an Interlocutory Writ of injunction should not be issued against the Respondent prohibiting and restraining the Respondent by itself and through its servants, prposs, agents or otherwise from infringing the Applicants interest in the copyright in the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results), as the sole representative of Football DataCo Ltd to grant licences for commercial use or betting purposes for the territory of Mauritius whether by reproducing, making use thereof on coupons or on any other infringing material or by electronic digital means, or otherwise unlawfully dealing with the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) of The Football Association Premier League Limited, The Football League Limited, Scottish Premier League Limited and The Scottish Football League and/or part thereof. D. Furthermore, to order the Co-Respondent as the Regulatory Authority to ensure that the rights of the above named Applicant are protected and respected by the respondent and to protect the citizens of the Republic of Mauritius from fraud by requiring the respondent to settle football bets on the official results and fixtures (football data) licenced to the Applicant as the sole representative of Football DataCo Ltd in Mauritius. E. Such other or further reliefs as the Honourable Judge may deem fit and proper and/or as the Justice of the case may require in the present circumstances. 100. Applicant therefore prays accordingly.

Solemnly Affirmed by the above named

Deponent in Chambers, Supreme Court House ) this 5th day of September , 2012 )

Drawn up by me, Before me, Me. Roshan Rajroop Attorney at Law I certify that the present affidavit shall form part of an application to be entered before the Honourable Judge sitting at Chambers. Me. Roshan Rajroop Attorney-at-Law

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

(Before the Honourable Judge in Chambers of the Commercial Division) In the matter of: SPORT DATA FEED Ltd, having its registered address at Suite 317, 3rd Floor, St James court, St Denis Street, Port Louis, Mauritius. Versus THE AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS LTD, having its registered office at c/o Mrs Sylvia Maigrot, Wolmar, Flic en Flac. Respondent In the presence of: THE GAMBLING REGULATORY AUTHORITY, having its office address at 12th Floor, Newton Tower, Sir William Newton Street, Port Louis, Mauritius. Co-Respondent And in the matter of:- Ex parte SPORT DATA FEED Ltd, having its registered address at Suite 317, 3rd Floor, St James court, St Denis Street, Port Louis, Mauritius. P R O E C I P E: For the issue of:- A. An Interim Order in the nature of an Injunction, at the Applicants risks and peril and upon its undertaking to abide by any Order which the Honourable Judge in Chambers may thereafter make as to damages by reason of the granting of such Interim Order, restraining and prohibiting the Respondent by itself and through its servants, prposs, agents or otherwise from infringing or further infringing the Applicants interest and legal rights in the copyright in the Fixture Lists and Football Data(including match results) as the sole representative of Football DataCo Ltd to grant licences for commercial use or betting purposes for the territory of Mauritius whether by reproducing, making use thereof on coupons or on any other infringing material or by electronic digital means, or otherwise unlawfully dealing with the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) of The Football Association Premier League Limited, The Football League Limited, Scottish Premier League Limited and The Scottish Football League and/or part thereof. Applicant Applicant

B. A summons calling upon the Respondent and Co-Respondent to be and appear before the Honourable Judge in Chambers, on a day and hour to be fixed in such summons to show cause, if any, why the Order referred to in paragraph (A) above should not be converted into an order in the nature of an Interlocutory Writ of Injunction pending the determination of the main action which the Applicant intends to file before the Supreme Court. C. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, should the Honourable Judge sitting at Chambers decline to grant the Interim Order prayed for above, it is urgent and necessary that a Summons should issue against the Respondent calling upon the latter on a day and hour to be fixed in such summons, to show cause, if any, why an Order in the nature of an Interlocutory Writ of injunction should not be issued against the Respondent prohibiting and restraining the Respondent by itself and through its servants, prposs, agents or otherwise from infringing the Applicants interest in the copyright in the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results), as the sole representative of Football DataCo Ltd to grant licences for commercial use or betting purposes for the territory of Mauritius whether by reproducing, making use thereof on coupons or on any other infringing material or by electronic digital means, or otherwise unlawfully dealing with the Fixture Lists and Football Data (including match results) of The Football Association Premier League Limited, The Football League Limited, Scottish Premier League Limited and The Scottish Football League and/or part thereof. D. Furthermore, to order the Co-Respondent as the Regulatory Authority to ensure that the rights of the above named Applicant are protected and respected by the respondent and to protect the citizens of the Republic of Mauritius from fraud by requiring the respondent to settle football bets on the official results and fixtures (football data) licenced to the Applicant as the sole representative of Football DataCo Ltd in Mauritius. E. Such other or further reliefs as the Honourable Judge may deem fit and proper and/or as the Justice of the case may require in the present circumstances.

And this for the reasons fully set forth in the hereto-annexed affidavit. Under all legal reservations, Dated at Port-Louis, this 5th day of September 2012. Me. Roshan Rajroop
Applicants Attorney, instructing Me. Antoine Domingue, Senior Counsel.